ADVANCED MOVING: Ill. Suit Charges Mover with Deceptive Pricing---------------------------------------------------------------Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Advanced Moving and Storage made a lowball bid and then increased the charge on moving day, when its customer had "little alternative but to submit" to the scheme.

Named plaintiff Tammie Lester says she rejected Advanced Moving's bid for her move from Illinois to Texas, but later received a call from the company's representative, James Lalagos, who promised she would be charged $1,100 if she shared a truck with another customer. Ms. Lester says Lalagos promised her there would be no cancellation fee, so she accepted the offer.

But when movers arrived at her home, they told her the price had increased and there would be a $400 cancellation fee, Mr. Lester says. She canceled anyway, afraid of what might happen if she let the company take her stuff, according to the complaint in Cook County Court.

Ms. Lester says she found out later that Advanced Moving had charged the full amount for the move on her debit card days before, and has refused to issue her a refund.

She says Advanced Moving falsely claims it does not charge until the day of the move.

ALLIANZ LIFE: Senior Citizen Class Can Pursue Punitive Damages--------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge in San Diego ruled that a class of senior citizens can pursue punitive damages against Allianz Life Insurance accused of using deceptive sales tactics to sell highly inappropriate derivative investments at senior centers in a carnival atmosphere with free drinks, joke sheets and door prizes.

Allianz asked the court to decide punitive damages on a case-by-case basis, but U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino said the company's deceptive practices, as described in the underlying complaint, "were substantially the same" for all plaintiffs.

"A jury can assess the harm that could have been caused by these misrepresentations as a whole based on the Defendant's misconduct irrespective of the individual circumstances surrounding the class members, as they are all, at bottom, elderly persons who relied on misrepresentations regarding the bonus that was allegedly part of the offered annuity plan," Judge Sammartino wrote.

Allianz allegedly targeted seniors with deferred annuities, which are fixed-account investments that mature over a long period of time. Allianz also hit seniors with "substantial surrender charges" if they tried to withdraw their money early, according to the 2005 lawsuit.

"This inherent lack of flexibility, coupled with the diminishing resources of the elderly, was one of the principal reasons for California's enactment of the Senior Insurance provisions," said plaintiff lawyer Ronald Marron in the class complaint, referring to regulations protecting seniors from con artists.

Citing the experience of the named plaintiff, Anthony Lorio, the complaint says he received a flyer advertising a complimentary financial planning seminar for seniors at the Harding Center in Carlsbad.

The defendant Allianz used cut-outs, or contractors, in an effort insulate itself from liability, said the complaint. The pitch man in Carlsbad is described in the complaint as a "very dynamic speaker" pitching bad investments to the old folks in "a carnival atmosphere with free beverages, a folder filled with information including a sheet of jokes on top, and changes for door prizes."

In allowing the class to go after punitive damages over the defendants' sales tactics, Judge Sammartino was also critical of the defendants' legal tactics. "Though defendants originally brought this matter before the Court on the false assertion at oral argument that new Ninth Circuit law has been produced, prompting the Court to allow the present motion to filed, this simply not the case."

Judge Sammartino said she declined to turn the law on its head without further guidance from the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. "The Court finds that class certification of the punitive damages claim in the above action does not violate the defendant's due process rights under the current state of the law."

Trial is set to begin in March 2010.

A copy of the Court's Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Decertify Punitive Damages Class Claim entered in Iorio, et al. v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 05-cv-633 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: David Robb Wants Appointment as Lead Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------------David Robb has moved for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel in a lawsuit against Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions Inc., according to the company's Oct. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 4, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company, Glen Tullman and William Davis by the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund on behalf of a purported class consisting of stockholders who purchased Allscripts common stock between May 8, 2007 and Feb. 13, 2008.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the company, Glen Tullman and William Davis made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition and prospects, and on that basis the complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover the price declines in Allscripts' common stock that occurred on Nov. 8, 2007, when the company released its third quarter 2007 financial results, and on Feb. 13, 2008, when the company released full year 2007 results.

On Oct. 5, 2009, David Robb moved for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel.

ALLSTATE LIFE: Third Circuit Breathes Life Back Into ERISA Case---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted Allstate Insurance Company's motion to dismiss a putative nationwide class action filed by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a worker classification issue, according to Allstate Life Insurance Company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Allstate Life is wholly owned by Allstate Insurance.

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes. This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial court in 2005.

In June 2007, the court granted Allstate Insurance's motion to dismiss the case. Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third Circuit along with the merits of the appeal.

In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted Allstate Insurance's motion to dismiss the case, remanded the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the case be reassigned to another trial court judge.

Allstate Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a life insurance company. The Company, together with itssubsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investmentproducts for individual and institutional customers. AllstateLife conducts substantially all of its operations directly orthrough wholly owned United States subsidiaries. The Companyand its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as theAllstate Life Group. The Allstate Life Group's principalindividual products are fixed annuities, including deferred,immediate and indexed, and interest-sensitive, traditional andvariable life insurance. It also distributes variable annuitiesthrough its bank distribution partners. Allstate Life is awholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co., a stockproperty-liability insurance company. Allstate Insurance Co. isowned by The Allstate Corp.

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Suit Says "Blue Cash Card" Didn't Return Cash---------------------------------------------------------------Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that American Express lured thousands of people into accepting offers for a "Blue Cash Card" on false promises that they could earn cash rewards on purchases, according to a federal class action. But "not only did American Express fail to tell its customers the truth when the offer was made, they also failed to properly inform those same customers that there were additional restrictions to the Blue Cash program before or even after they were made," the complaint states.

The cardholders say American Express' offers were full of misrepresentations, among them, that frequent spending would earn them even more rewards.

Lead plaintiff Mindy Pagsolingan says she accepted an offer for the card in 2004 on American Express' representation that she would receive a reward of "up to 5 percent" cash back on her purchases, including a 2 percent cash bonus for her "everyday purchases."

Ms. Pagsolingan says American Express misrepresented the cash rebates, and used a deceptive "tiered" system based on the clause "up to," to avoid paying her the full amount.

The class demands damages for false advertising and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Pagsolingan v. American Express Company, et al., Case No. 09-cv-5039 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

ARCA BIOPHARMA: Continues to Seek Dismissal of Amended Suit-----------------------------------------------------------ARCA biopharma, Inc., formerly known as Nuvelo, Inc., continues to pursue the dismissal of an amended consolidated complaint related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase.

On Feb. 9, 2007, Nuvelo and certain of its former and current officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported securities class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which Nuvelo announced on Dec. 11, 2006, and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of Nuvelo's common stock during the period between Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Nuvelo misled investors regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood of success.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York on Feb. 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007. On April 10, 2007, three separate motions to consolidate the cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff's counsel were filed.

On April 18, 2007, Nuvelo filed a motion to transfer the four cases to the Northern District of California. The Court grantedNuvelo's motion to transfer the cases to the Northern District of California in July 2007.

Plaintiffs have filed motions for consolidation, lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in the Northern District of California on Nov. 9, 2007.

Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs consolidated complaint on Dec. 21, 2007. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Nuvelo's motion to dismiss on Feb. 4, 2008. On June 12, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

On Dec. 4, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint, and granting leave to amend.

On March 24, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On July 15, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

Based on the Court's Dec. 4, 2008 order, and plaintiff's amended complaint, ARCA believes that any attorneys' fees, loss or settlement payment with respect to this suit will be paid by its insurance providers, according to the company's Aug. 10, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

ARCA biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.nuvelo.com/-- formerly known as Nuvelo, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for acute cardiovascular disease, cancer and other debilitating medical conditions.

BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, Woodbridge Holdings Corp.formerly known as Levitt Corp., continues to defend a purportedclass-action complaint filed by Robert D. Dance in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of Florida, accordingto the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June30, 2009.

On Jan. 25, 2008, plaintiff Robert D. Dance filed a purportedclass-action complaint as a putative purchaser of securitiesagainst Woodbridge and certain of its officers and directors,asserting claims under the federal securities law and seekingdamages.

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of Florida and is captioned, Dance v. LevittCorp. et al., No. 08-CV-60111-DLG.

The securities litigation purports to be brought on behalf ofall purchasers of Woodbridge's securities beginning on Jan. 31,2007 and ending on Aug. 14, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder by issuing a series of false and/or misleadingstatements concerning Woodbridge's financial results, prospectsand condition.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a holding company. Its ownership interests include direct andindirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,including consumer and commercial banking, master-plannedcommunity development, time-share and vacation ownership, anAsian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate andventure capital investments. BFC's holdings consist of directcontrolling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and LevittCorporation. BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc. BFCitself has no significant operations other than activitiesrelating to the monitoring of existing investments. BFCoperates through six segments: BFC Activities, FinancialServices and four segments within its Real Estate DevelopmentDivision.

The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, GarfieldPerry and Susan Perry. The defendants are Brush Wellman,Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 2004, namingfive additional plaintiffs. The five additional namedplaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion,James Jones and John Kesselring.

The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized toberyllium while employed at the Boeing Company. The plaintiffs'wives claim loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeingor its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the otherconsisting of their spouses. They have brought claims fornegligence, strict liability - design defect, strict liability -failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of impliedwarranties, and unfair business practices.

BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appellate Court Approves Motion to Lift Stay--------------------------------------------------------------Gary Anthony's appeal from the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of his purportedclass-action lawsuit against Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.remains stayed.

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of currentand former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for aperiod of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.

The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence. Plaintiffseeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, costof publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medicalscreening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees andexpenses.

Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaintagainst Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006.Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containingproducts to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on thoseproducts, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods forindemnification and contribution. Brush moved to dismiss theTube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006. On Jan. 12, 2007, TubeMethods filed an amended third-party complaint, which Brushmoved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007; however, the Court denied themotion on Sept. 28, 2007. Brush filed its answer to the amendedthird-party complaint on Oct. 19, 2007.

On Nov. 14, 2007, two of the defendants filed a joint motion foran order permitting discovery to make the thresholddetermination of whether plaintiff is sensitized to beryllium.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the court approved the parties' stipulationthat the plaintiff is not sensitized to beryllium.

Oral argument on this motion took place on June 13, 2008, andthe court took the motion under submission.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the court granted the motion for summaryjudgment in favor of all of the defendants and dismissedplaintiff's class action complaint.

On Oct. 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Courtof Appeals has granted a motion to stay the appeal due to thebankruptcy of one of the appellees, Millennium Petrochemicals.

On April 3, 2009, Small Tube Manufacturing filed a motion for relief in bankruptcy court from the automatic stay, asking that the bankruptcy court modify the stay to allow Small Tube Manufacturing's indemnification claim against Millennium Petrochemicals and the Anthony case to proceed to final judgment, including all appeals.

On May 14, 2009, the bankruptcy court approved a stipulation and order modifying the automatic stay to permit Millennium Petrochemicals and Small Tube Manufacturing to participate in the appeal.

On May 27, 2009, Small Tube Manufacturing filed an unopposed motion with the Court of Appeals to lift the stay, which the court granted on June 22, 2009, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2009.

CELERA CORP: No Agreement Reached in Stock Purchasers Suit ----------------------------------------------------------No agreement has yet been reached in consolidated class-action complaint against Applied Biosystems, Inc., nka Life Technologies, and some of its officers relating to the public offering of Celera Group common stock, according to Celera's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2009.

Applied Biosystems and some of its officers are defendants in a lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of Celera stock in its follow-on public offering of Celera stock completed on March 6, 2000. In the offering, Applied Biosystems sold an aggregate of approximately 4.4 million shares of Celera stock at a public offering price of $225 per share. The lawsuit, which was commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May 2000, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on August 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to providing patent protection to Celera's genomic-based products.

Although neither Celera nor Applied Biosystems ever sought, or intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the complaint also alleges that Applied Biosystems did not adequately disclose the risk that it would not be able to patent this data.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, rescission, costs and expenses, and other relief as the court deems proper. On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as a class action.

In November 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut issued an order to the parties to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. A hearing on this matter was held in April 2009 at which the Court directed the parties to explore a potential settlement of the matter.

The parties are exploring a settlement in accordance with the Court's direction, but no agreement has yet been reached.

Celera Corp. -- http://www.celera.com-- is a healthcare business delivering personalized disease management through acombination of products and services. The Company operates inthree segments: a clinical laboratory testing service business(Lab Services), a products business (Products), and a segmentwhich includes other activities under corporate management(Corporate). Its Lab Services business, conducted throughBerkeley HeartLab, Inc., (BHL), offers a portfolio of clinicallaboratory tests and disease management services to helphealthcare providers improve cardiovascular disease treatmentregimens for patients. Its Products business develops,manufactures, and oversees the commercialization of moleculardiagnostic products, which are commercialized through itsrelationship with Abbott Molecular, a subsidiary of AbbottLaboratories. On July 1, 2008, Celera announced that it hascompleted its split-off from Applera Corp.

FORETHOUGHT FEDERAL: Prepaid Funeral Scam Alleged in Tennessee--------------------------------------------------------------Liz Potocsnak at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of Tennesseans say they were cheated of prepaid funeral services because Forethought Federal Savings Bank used their money to take out life insurance on them. They say a funeral home and cemetery took their money and deposited it with the Forethought Bank, which used the cash to buy life insurance on them from its subsidiary, Forethought Life Insurance.

The class says they had no idea that life insurance policies had been taken out on their lives.

Forest Hill Funeral Home and Tennessee Cemeteries are not named as defendants in the lawsuit, but are named as co-conspirators. They allegedly transferred the trust funds and insurance policies to Community Trust and Investment Company.

Community Trust allowed the insurance policies to be surrendered for cash, the class claims, and took out extra for "substantial surrender charges." Fees were charged and unauthorized withdrawals were made, and the class says there was not enough money left to pay for their burial and funeral services.

They sued Community Trust, Forethought Federal Savings Bank and its subsidiary for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, conversion, fraud and civil conspiracy.

GUIDANT CORP: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ind. Investor Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld dismissal of a class action accusing a Boston Scientific subsidiary of misleading investors by concealing a design flaw in its heart defibrillators.

In June and July 2006, several class-action complaints were served against the company and certain of Herley's current and former officers and directors.

The claims are made under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities during various periods before June 14, 2006.

All defendants in the class-action complaints filed motions to dismiss on April 6, 2007. On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the company and its former Chairman's motion to dismiss and granted, in part, the other defendants' motion to dismiss.

Specifically, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the other defendants and denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim against them.

On July 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification.

On March 4, 2009, all defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On May 18, 2009 Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for class certification. Oral argument regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held on July 17, 2009.

On Oct. 9, 2009, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Court certified a class consisting of all purchasers of Herley stock between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006, who sustained a loss as a result of that acquisition. The parties are currently in the process of completing fact and expert discovery.

MARCUS CORP: Units Plea to Dismiss "Goodman" Suit Being Briefed---------------------------------------------------------------Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, and Marcus Management Marcus Management Las Vegas, LLC's move to dismiss the amended class action complaint filed by Adam Goodman is currently being briefed, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 28, 2009. Platinum LLC and Marcus Management are Marcus Corp.'s subsidiaries.

On April 30, 2009, Platinum LLC was served with a summons and a copy of an amended complaint. The amended complaint also named Marcus Management as a defendant. Subsequently, Platinum LLC and Marcus Management removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, where it is currently pending.

The amended complaint in Goodman seeks an unspecified amount of damages and alleges violations of federal and Nevada law, and that Platinum LLC and Marcus Management made various representations in connection with the Platinum Hotel & Spa development in Las Vegas, Nevada.

On June 29, 2009, both Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and their motion is currently being briefed.

The Marcus Corporation -- http://www.marcuscorp.com/-- is engaged primarily in two business segments: movie theatres, and hotels and resorts. As of May 28, 2009, the company's theatre operations included 53 movie theatres with 663 screens throughout Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa, including one movie theatre with six screens in Wisconsin owned by a third party but managed by the company. It also operates a family entertainment center, Funset Boulevard, which is adjacent to one of its theatres in Appleton, Wisconsin. As of May 28, 2009, the company's hotels and resorts operations included eight owned and operated hotels and resorts in Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois and Oklahoma. It also manages 12 hotels, resorts and other properties for third parties in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and California. As of May 28, 2009, it owned or managed approximately 5,200 hotel and resort rooms.

NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Illinois----------------------------------------------------------------Nucor Corp. continues to defend several related antitrust class-action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2009.

Standard Iron Works v. ArcelorMittal, et al., Case No. 08-cv-5214 (N.D. Ill.), was filed on Sept. 12, 2008, and names the company as defendant along with:

The plaintiffs allege that from January 2005 to the present, the eight steel manufacturers engaged in anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief.

In a decision announced on June 12, 2009, Judge James B. Zagel denied a motion by the defendants to dismiss the lawsuit. Judge Zagel determined that the eight steel manufacturers coordinatedproduction schedules and undertook other schemes intended to inflate the price of steel between January 2005 and the present. (Class Action Reporter, June 18, 2009).

SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I"---------------------------------------------------------------The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule ona motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claimingentitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by theplaintiffs in the purported class-action lawsuit, Will Price, etal. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.

The putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 28, 1999,wherein the named plaintiffs have sued over 50 defendants,including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,accounting and unjust enrichment, a fourth amended class actioncomplaint in the case alleges that the defendants have under-measured the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, thenatural gas they have obtained from or measured for theplaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to pleadfor punitive damages.

On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalfof Southern Star. Despite a denial by the court on April 10,2003, of their original motion for class certification, theplaintiffs continue to seek the certification of a class.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for a secondtime was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on thismotion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion tointervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement toa portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs. It isunknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company reported no further developments regarding the casein its Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case---------------------------------------------------------------The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule ona motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claimingentitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by theplaintiffs in Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 03 C 23 ("Price Litigation II").

The putative class-action suit was filed on May 12, 2003. Thenamed plaintiffs from Price Litigation I have sued the samedefendants.

Asserting substantially identical legal and equitable theories,as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that thedefendants have undermeasured the British thermal units, or BTU,content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gasthey have obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to pleadfor punitive damages.

On Nov. 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalfof Central.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along withthe plaintiffs' second class certification motion in PriceLitigation I, was fully briefed and the court heard oralargument on this motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion tointervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement toa portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs. It isunknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company reported no further developments regarding the casein its Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The class action complaint was filed on June 18, 2002, against Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Tellabs) and Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs), according to the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2009.

Thereafter, eight similar complaints were filed. All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on Dec. 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class period, Dec. 11, 2000-June 19, 2001, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading, misrepresenting demand for our products, and reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in our financial statements. Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities laws by trading our securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about us pertaining to these matters. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and Notebaert, and many, although not all, of the other previously named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class action complaint. The company filed a second motion to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action complaint.

On Feb. 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit, appealing the dismissal.

The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on Jan. 21, 2005. On Jan. 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for further proceedings.

On Feb. 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the district court.

On Sept. 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining claims. On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the United States Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision. On Jan. 5, 2007, the defendants' petition was granted.

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the United States Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. On Nov. 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded case. On Jan. 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On Feb. 24, 2009, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The case is now proceeding in the district court and discovery is ongoing.

TELLABS INC: "Brieger" Plaintiffs File Notice of Appeal -------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered in Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-_____ (N.D. Ill.), in favor of Tellabs, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2009.

The class action complaint was filed on April 5, 2006, against the company, Michael Birck, Richard Notebaert and current or former Tellabs employees who, during the alleged class period of Dec. 11, 2000, to July 1, 2003, participated on the Tellabs Investment and Administrative Committees of the Tellabs, Inc. Profit Sharing and Savings Plan. Thereafter, two similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among other things, continuing to offer Tellabs common stock as a Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so and allegedly misrepresenting and failing to disclose material information necessary for Plan participants to make informed decisions concerning the Plan. Further, certain of the defendants allegedly failed to monitor the fiduciary activities of the fiduciaries they appointed and certain of the defendants allegedly breached their duty of loyalty by trading Tellabs stock, while taking no protective action on behalf of Plan participants. The complaints seek unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On June 28, 2006, the Court consolidated all three actions and on Aug. 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. On Sept. 15, 2006, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the consolidated amended class action complaint.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion and on April 17, 2007, denied Tellabs' motion for leave to certify an issue for interlocutory appeal to the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit.

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class, discovery was conducted to determine the propriety of class certification, and Tellabs opposed class certification. On Sept. 20, 2007, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class.

The trial started on April 13, 2009, and ended on May 8, 2009. On June 1, 2009, the court entered judgment in favor of Tellabs on all claims. The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2009.

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Sued For Favoring Applicants with Clout---------------------------------------------------------------Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana favors applicants with political clout over good students, a class action claims in Federal Court. The class claims the university rejected qualified students, but accepted unqualified ones who have relations with politicians and other "very important" people -- and even kept a "clout list" for a decade.

The class claims that between 1999 and 2009 the university maintained a "clout list," also known as a "Category I" list, of students who were admitted because of their political connections, though they had lower exam scores and class ranks than other applicants.

The university claims its admission criteria includes a strong academic record, competitive test scores, leadership and communication skills, but does not mention political connections, the class says. It adds that students are pay a $40 application fee, but are not told that their chance of admission is diminished if they lack clout.

"Politically appointed trustees and lawmakers routinely behave as armchair admissions officers advocating on behalf of relatives and neighbors -- even housekeepers' kids and families with whom they share Hawaiian vacations . . . They declare their candidates 'no brainers' for admission and suggest that if they are not accepted, the admission system may need revamping," according to the complaint.

Named plaintiff Jonathon Yard says his application to enter in the fall of 2008 was rejected though he scored a 29 on the ACT, ranked in the top 15 percent of his class, "was a varsity athlete and participated in extracurricular activities."

A Chicago Tribune article reported this year that unqualified Category I applicants were admitted to UI even after admissions officers protested.

The class claims that Category I people were allowed to appeal rejections, "which often resulted in reconsideration of their application and ultimately, admission to the university."

The class claims other applicants were not even aware they could appeal, and that the university does not actually have an "official appeals process."

The class says the university also granted law school admissions in exchange for law firm jobs for its students.

The class seeks actual and punitive damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and denial of equal protection.

A copy of the Complaint in Yard v. The University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, et al., Case No. 09-cv-06584 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

USANA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Chirco" Suit in Nevada Court---------------------------------------------------------------Usana Health Sciences Inc. continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit filed with the State District Court in Clark County, Nevada, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2009.

In April 2009, Joseph Chirco, a former USANA Associate filed a purported class action lawsuit and named the company and certain of its present and former officers and directors, as well as other individuals, as defendants.

The proposed class consists of distributors who were Nevada residents at any time since 1995. The complaint, which is essentially a copy of a complaint from a purported distributor class action lawsuit filed against the company in California state court in 2007, alleges a number of purported material misrepresentations to the market in violation of state pyramid law, deceptive business practices, and business fraud law.

The complaint seeks damages, general injunctive relief, pre-judgment interest, costs, attorney's fees, and other further relief deemed appropriate by the court. The company believes the claims in this complaint are distorted, not actionable under applicable law, and without merit.

On June 2009, the company filed its answer to the complaint, which contained a general denial of the allegations in the complaint and set forth its affirmative defenses.

Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, USANA Health Sciences, Inc. -- http://www.usanahealthsciences.com/-- develops and manufactures science-based nutritional and personal care products. The company distributes and sells its products internationally through a network marketing system, which is a form of direct selling. Its international markets include Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, and direct sales from the United States to customers in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The company distributes and sells its products through a network marketing system, a form of direct selling, using independent distributors that it refers to as Associates. It also sells its products directly to Preferred Customers who purchase the Company's products for personal use and are not permitted to resell or distribute the products.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.